Well it looks like I'm going to be attending a debate with the infamous Mr. Hill and his band of merry sheep. The topic will be on relativism and how there is an objective truth. I forsee them saying that if what is right is subjective then if everyone thinks they should hit someone in the face then it's right and we'd all be murderers if it weren't for the "objective truth from God". Should I even bother arguing that things like that are subjective or should I just attack where they get their objectivity? If I were to go on the attack then we'd probably get into a debate about if God really exists and then they'd use that stupid Fatima miracle to "prove" God...
I don't think there's any way I'm going to further my position, the way they argue is so stupid. Their analogies and stupid rhetorical questions drive me insane. Not to mention that I'm often outnumbered in the debates and there are often people listening who scoff, snicker, and give each other meaningful looks as if I'm the one who's crazy. They think God or a miracle is more believable than mass hallucination or aliens. I think I might kill someone...
Upcoming Debate
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Biblical morality is amorality. Their behavior is based on desire for reward or fear of punishment, not a desire to do right.
Biblical morality is inconsistent. God says "Thou shalt not kill", then sends his followers to slaughter all of the inhabitants of Canaan. What's objective about that?
Biblical morality can be summed up as follows: "Do what God says! Do what He says today! What he said yesterday is irrelevant."
Biblical morality is inconsistent. God says "Thou shalt not kill", then sends his followers to slaughter all of the inhabitants of Canaan. What's objective about that?
Biblical morality can be summed up as follows: "Do what God says! Do what He says today! What he said yesterday is irrelevant."
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776
"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776
"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
-
Kuroneko
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
- Location: Fréchet space
- Contact:
Re: Upcoming Debate
Remind him that there are numerous objectivist accounts of ethics, some of them (e.g., virtue ethics) even dating back before Christianity even existed. Ask him to show that there could be substantial cognitive differences in rational beings in as much as they are behaving rationally, which is necessary to label deontological accounts like Kant's (doubly so for Aristotlean virtue ethics) as subjectivist, instead of objectivist. Unless reason itself is subjective (I really want to see someone argue this), it simply does not follow that God is only possible non-relativistic account.Hobot wrote:The topic will be on relativism and how there is an objective truth. I forsee them saying that if what is right is subjective then if everyone thinks they should hit someone in the face then it's right and we'd all be murderers if it weren't for the "objective truth from God".
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
Do they say it didn't happen or it didn't matter?Hobot wrote:They discount most of the Old Testament so I don't believe I can mention those conflicts and contradictions for any effect.
If they say it didn't happen they have to prove exactly which parts didn't and how they now. If they can't do this, then it is subjective based on what they want to be true.
If they say it doesn't matter then it is subjective based on what they think is important or moral.
Member of the BotM. @( !.! )@
Thanks Kuroneko, I'll try that.
They'd probably say that it didn't matter. If I say they're being subjective then they'll probably say the pope and his council can make infaliable decisions and they decided that it doesn't matter. They get that idea from the Bible I believe. I have a feeling that all of this is just circular logic but it's a big circle so by the time we go around it once they're ready to go around again (except by using different stupid analogies and sayings)...Do they say it didn't happen or it didn't matter?
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Ask them to define "objective". Anyone can say God is objective if he doesn't know what the fuck "objective" means.
An objective entity would be something which appears the same to everyone; right away, we have a problem since no one can directly perceive God at all.
Moreover, the only account we have of God's existence is the Bible, which is actually a secondhand account and completely subjective. Would we take OJ Simpson's account of his own marriage to be objective?
So not only is God not objective, but the only evidence we have is a secondhand hearsay description of him. For them to claim that this is "objective" is simply laughable.
PS. if they don't take every single word of the Bible completely literally, how can they claim anything in it is "objective" anyway? How does one determine what is the "correct" interpretation? Oh yeah, whatever suits their fancy.
An objective entity would be something which appears the same to everyone; right away, we have a problem since no one can directly perceive God at all.
Moreover, the only account we have of God's existence is the Bible, which is actually a secondhand account and completely subjective. Would we take OJ Simpson's account of his own marriage to be objective?
So not only is God not objective, but the only evidence we have is a secondhand hearsay description of him. For them to claim that this is "objective" is simply laughable.
PS. if they don't take every single word of the Bible completely literally, how can they claim anything in it is "objective" anyway? How does one determine what is the "correct" interpretation? Oh yeah, whatever suits their fancy.
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
Queeb Salaron
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2337
- Joined: 2003-03-12 12:45am
- Location: Left of center.
Inform Mr. Hill that there can be no objective truth that comes from religion. The founders of religions are Purists with biases that contradict certain general moralities in other cultures. Jews will not eat non-Kosher foods because they believe that they are impure. According to them, this was the Word of God. Christians, who read the same materials, discount this belief as an antiquated practice. So which is the ultimate truth, and which is God's truth?
Try finding differences between Judaism and Christianity, in Creed, Code, and Cult. Then propose these ideas to Mr. Hill and see what he has to say about them.
Try finding differences between Judaism and Christianity, in Creed, Code, and Cult. Then propose these ideas to Mr. Hill and see what he has to say about them.
Proud owner of The Fleshlight
G.A.L.E. Force - Bisexual Airborn Division
SDnet Resident Psycho Clown
"I hear and behold God in every object, yet I understand God not in the least, / Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself."
--Whitman
Fucking Funny.
G.A.L.E. Force - Bisexual Airborn Division
SDnet Resident Psycho Clown
"I hear and behold God in every object, yet I understand God not in the least, / Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself."
--Whitman
Fucking Funny.
-
Kuroneko
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
- Location: Fréchet space
- Contact:
It would probably be helpful to give the definitions of relativism and objectivism as defined in ethical context. Ethical relativism has two subtypes: subjectivism, which grounds ethics in personal decisions, and conventionalism, which grounds ethics in social acceptance. Objectivist ethics hold that there is an (are) absolute moral principle(s) that are true regardless of whether anyone believes in them, or whether they're accepted by any society at all.
The most common ethical systems like Kantian or utilitarianist are in fact objectivist. If he insists they are not, then he's redefining the commonly accepted definition, in which case ask for the definition he's using. More likely than not he won't be able to give any coherent account, but I'm hoping he had invested some actual thought into this.
The most common ethical systems like Kantian or utilitarianist are in fact objectivist. If he insists they are not, then he's redefining the commonly accepted definition, in which case ask for the definition he's using. More likely than not he won't be able to give any coherent account, but I'm hoping he had invested some actual thought into this.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
-
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
Well the debate lasted about an hour and a half before everyone had to go. All that was discussed was the question of objectivity. I was the only one against the significance of their being an objective truth (assuming there is one) since people will invariabley make mistakes when interpreting a source like the Bible which must be read contextually. He argued that objective truth can be determined by reason. The next debate will be a week from now. I'm thinking that if objective truth can be determined through reason then it should be possible to logically prove God (who is supposedly the very embodiment of truth). I'm sure that is not possible...
What are everyone's thought on "objective truth"? Does it really exist, or is truth just subjective?
What are everyone's thought on "objective truth"? Does it really exist, or is truth just subjective?
-
Kuroneko
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 2469
- Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
- Location: Fréchet space
- Contact:
It seems rather reasonable that some things are true regardless of whether or not anyone is aware of them. Here, I agree with this Mr. Hill... but at the same time, I find his position strange. I cannot imagine how it further the advocacy of religion. Just don't let him bully you with ontological 'proofs' of God. One can easily use the same type argument to 'prove' the non-existence of God.Hobot wrote:Well the debate lasted about an hour and a half before everyone had to go. All that was discussed was the question of objectivity... He argued that objective truth can be determined by reason... What are everyone's thought on "objective truth"? Does it really exist, or is truth just subjective?
What's the topic? Or a continuation?Hobot wrote:The next debate will be a week from now.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
"Truth" is a word with many meanings. But a more reasonable term is "objective reality". Does God exist in objective reality? Therein lies the crux of the matter.
Is there a such thing as objective reality? Yes. It's called "the universe". What's the difference between God as objective reality and the universe as objective reality? We can observe the universe. We know it's there. Ergo, there is an objective "truth" out there, but that truth is that which we can perceive, not that which we are told about by the writings of long-dead tribal primitives.
It is impossible to start at nothing and arrive at objective reality through reason. That is the cart before the horse; you are supposed to start at objective reality (facts which are known to be true through direct observation) and base your reasoning on it.
Reason is an analysis tool. You apply reason to the facts in order to see where they lead. You cannot apply reason in a VACUUM; it is like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start with bullshit facts, you can be completely logical and your conclusion will still be bullshit.
So the question becomes: if you regard logic as an engine of analysis, what do you feed it for fuel? The scientist feeds it observations of the only objective truth which is known to exist: the universe (some would deny even that, but frankly, they're morons). The religious man feeds it his various superstitions. In both cases, the logic engine spits out an answer. In only one of those cases is that answer based on objective reality.
God is not objective reality. God is not objective truth. God is the conclusion derived from reasoning based on the faulty premise that if dead men wrote it down three thousand years ago, it must be true. It is a conclusion based on junk premises and its salesmen slap the term "objective" on it, even though nothing could be farther from the truth. It's like slapping "great bargain" on a used car; you can use whatever label you want, but shit by any other name still stinks.
Is there a such thing as objective reality? Yes. It's called "the universe". What's the difference between God as objective reality and the universe as objective reality? We can observe the universe. We know it's there. Ergo, there is an objective "truth" out there, but that truth is that which we can perceive, not that which we are told about by the writings of long-dead tribal primitives.
It is impossible to start at nothing and arrive at objective reality through reason. That is the cart before the horse; you are supposed to start at objective reality (facts which are known to be true through direct observation) and base your reasoning on it.
Reason is an analysis tool. You apply reason to the facts in order to see where they lead. You cannot apply reason in a VACUUM; it is like a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. If you start with bullshit facts, you can be completely logical and your conclusion will still be bullshit.
So the question becomes: if you regard logic as an engine of analysis, what do you feed it for fuel? The scientist feeds it observations of the only objective truth which is known to exist: the universe (some would deny even that, but frankly, they're morons). The religious man feeds it his various superstitions. In both cases, the logic engine spits out an answer. In only one of those cases is that answer based on objective reality.
God is not objective reality. God is not objective truth. God is the conclusion derived from reasoning based on the faulty premise that if dead men wrote it down three thousand years ago, it must be true. It is a conclusion based on junk premises and its salesmen slap the term "objective" on it, even though nothing could be farther from the truth. It's like slapping "great bargain" on a used car; you can use whatever label you want, but shit by any other name still stinks.
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
I thought his position was odd too. It seemed to negate the significance of a God. If what's true can be determined through logic and reason, what do we need God for and why is every other religion wrong?It seems rather reasonable that some things are true regardless of whether or not anyone is aware of them. Here, I agree with this Mr. Hill... but at the same time, I find his position strange. I cannot imagine how it further the advocacy of religion. Just don't let him bully you with ontological 'proofs' of God. One can easily use the same type argument to 'prove' the non-existence of God.
As for things being objectively true or real, what about morality? Do you think that morality and ethics determined through reason and logic are objective truths (eg. killing a person is objectively wrong, therefore abortion is wrong)?
They haven't decided on the next topic I don't think. I suppose it'll be a continuation because we didn't really finish...What's the topic? Or a continuation?